Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the double opt-in email workflow: 'IBO then emails the customer a one-click confirmation link... only a confirmed inquiry reaches the studio'. It also states placeholder inquiries are rejected and mentions the one-business-day response time.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains several important instructions in a compact paragraph. Every sentence adds value, though it's a bit dense; but for a complex workflow, this is acceptable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (double opt-in, external email, confirmation flow), the description covers the key workflow steps, constraints, and time expectations. The output schema presumably documents return values, so the description doesn't need to, but some parameter semantics are still lacking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by suggesting fields to collect ('what they are promoting, audience, formats, delivery resolution, timing') but doesn't explain all parameters (links, notes, constraints, product, etc.). It adds some semantics but not enough for a 12-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start a Custom Production conversation without payment' and 'Submits a scope inquiry'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the no-payment route and that a 4K Campaign Series must use this route before checkout.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit usage context: 'A 4K Campaign Series must use this route before checkout' and instructs to interview for real project details first. It doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, but 'before checkout' implies a different payment tool, and the sibling list provides context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.